Legal Opinion
Muir v. Kalamazoo Corset Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 1909No. Docket No. 84PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Error to Wayne; Brooke, J. Assumpsit by Erwin T. Muir against the Kalamazoo Corset Company for commissions on the sale of certain goods. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The parties to this suit had contract relations evidenced by a memorandum, the terms of which are here set out:
“ The said Kalamazoo Corset Co, agrees:
“ (1) To employ the said E. T. Muir as superintendent of all of the retail departments owned by the said Kala*626mazoo Corset Co., or that shall hereafter be acquired during the life of this contract, it being understood that said E. T. Muir is to have general supervision of said departments.
“(2) To pay said E. T. Muir as compensation for his services a commission of five per cent, on the gross sales made by all of said retail departments now owned…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Continental Insurance v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Dutton v. ShawMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Sullings v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Ryan v. MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gardiner v. CourtrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Pachuczynski v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- McGary v. Buick Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- City of Ferndale v. EalandMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979
- Meyerotto v. Estate of RommelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.